THE SUNDAY MORNING ROUND-UP RETURNS! Condoleezza Rice is the Angelina Jolie of Sunday morning. No one can get enough of her. In spite of refusing to give exclusive interviews, Condi was welcomed as the headliner on both This Week and Meet the Press.

On This Week, she was followed by Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont. On Meet the Press, she was followed by friend-of-Joe Lanny Davis and friend-of-Ned Jim Dean.

Face the Nation pretty much threw in the towel, featuring Chuck Hagel and Chris Dodd.

Condi on NBC: B-. I can't recall seeing Rice so defensive and lacking confidence. She tried hard but ineffectively to make the case that diplomacy is getting us anywhere closer to a ceasefire in Lebanon.

Lanny Davis: B+. Started slow, but made good points for Lieberman. Apparently, Lamont actually wrote Lieberman a campaign check even after the infamous Lieberman-Bush "kiss" in February 2005.

Jim Dean: C. That's Jim Dean as in brother-of-Howard, not Jimmy Dean the sausage magnate. Anyhow, it isn't Dean's fault he got a C. He admitted quite candidly that he wasn't sure what Lamont's position is on withdrawing troops from Iraq because Lamont's own statements are confusing. Yikes.

Condi on ABC: B. Stronger than on NBC, but still far from persuasive on the effectiveness of diplomacy in Lebanon. Stephanopoulos asked who exactly would provide troops for a UN force, since no foreign country is willing to forcibly disarm Hezbollah. Condi insisted that once a new resolution demands disarmament, the weight of the resolution will carry the day. Not exactly a typical Bush argument...

Lieberman: C-. I just don't get it. Is he trying to sabotage his chances of winning the primary, or has he simply decided that he is now trying to keep Republican voters in the fold for the general election in November? Additional commentary to follow.

Lamont: B. Quite good for an amateur. But he can't seem to decide if he's a one-issue, anti-war candidate or if there is anything else on his agenda. First he insisted that the war isn't just one more issue, but rather the issue now defining America. Then he retreated from the suggestion that he was just running against the war and scrambled ineffectively to find some other difference between himself and Lieberman.

Dodd: B+. Why is that Democrats can sound persuasively, sincerely hawkish when talking about Israel, but not about Iraq, Iran or North Korea?

Hagel: B. Reasonable. Unexciting.

And the hosts? I've decided there isn't much point grading the hosts, since I almost never give any grade other than a B, B+ or B-. I figure that descriptive commentary would be more useful. Although I don't have anything particular to add right now, so see you next week.

Why is that Democrats can sound persuasively, sincerely hawkish when talking about Israel, but not about Iraq, Iran or North Korea?

These are the kinds of things that, unfairly really, help give rise to dark speculations about "Jewish money" and "Jewish power." Just as the liberal Jewish people who defend, very reasonably and cogently, Israel's military actions against every anti-war argument, but line up on the other side when it concerns the US or another ally help give rise to the accusations about "dual loyalty."

Of course, Israel faces threats to its own existence that the US does not, and it is absolutely possible to make all sorts of plausible fine distinctions. I feel unpleasant even writing the previous paragraph, since I absolutely disdain and renounce any such accusations. Still, some Democrats make worry whether I, as a supporter of Israel, should be glad that they at least support Israel or worry that they help feed the extreme left and extreme right's claims.

Why is that Democrats can sound persuasively, sincerely hawkish when talking about Israel, but not about Iraq, Iran or North Korea?Perhaps because it's a really bad idea to be hawkish about Iraq, Iran or North Korea. Being hawkish is sometimes necessary. Being hawkish for the sake of being hawkish is stupid and deadly.

Why is that Democrats can sound persuasively, sincerely hawkish when talking about Israel, but not about Iraq, Iran or North Korea?

Maybe it's because Israel is the only nation of the four that hasn't actively thumbed its nose at the US over the last 25 years or so. If you subscribe to the belief that Democrats have a healthy dose of anti-American feeling, their inability to sound hawkish on North Korea makes sense.